↓ Skip to main content

Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 2,569)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, September 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristin E. Kearns, Laura A. Schmidt, Stanton A. Glantz, Kearns, Cristin E, Schmidt, Laura A, Glantz, Stanton A, Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA

Abstract

Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s. We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study. The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. The SRF set the review's objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. The SRF's funding and role was not disclosed. Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry-funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,340 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 120 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 17%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Other 13 10%
Other 40 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Psychology 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Other 31 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4710. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2017.
All research outputs
#21
of 7,948,073 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#1
of 2,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1
of 247,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#1
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,948,073 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 108.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 247,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.